COVID-19 Research Prioritization Group on MNCAH. Global research priorities on COVID-19 for maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health

Setting research priorities for global pandemic preparedness: An international consensus and comparison with ChatGPT's output

Background

In this priority-setting exercise, we sought to identify leading research priorities needed for strengthening future pandemic preparedness and response across countries.

Methods

The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) used the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method to identify research priorities for future pandemic preparedness. Eighty experts in global health, translational and clinical research identified 163 research ideas, of which 42 experts then scored based on five pre-defined criteria. We calculated intermediate criterion-specific scores and overall research priority scores from the mean of individual scores for each research idea. We used a bootstrap (n = 1000) to compute the 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Key priorities included strengthening health systems, rapid vaccine and treatment production, improving international cooperation, and enhancing surveillance efficiency. Other priorities included learning from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, managing supply chains, identifying planning gaps, and promoting equitable interventions. We compared this CHNRI-based outcome with the 14 research priorities generated and ranked by ChatGPT, encountering both striking similarities and clear differences.

Conclusions

Priority setting processes based on human crowdsourcing - such as the CHNRI method - and the output provided by ChatGPT are both valuable, as they complement and strengthen each other. The priorities identified by ChatGPT were more grounded in theory, while those identified by CHNRI were guided by recent practical experiences. Addressing these priorities, along with improvements in health planning, equitable community-based interventions, and the capacity of primary health care, is vital for better pandemic preparedness and response in many settings.

Research priorities for care of preterm or low birth weight infants: health policy

Research priorities for preterm or low birth weight (LBW) infants were advanced in 2012, and other research priority-setting exercises since then have included more limited, context-specific research priorities pertaining to preterm infants. While developing new World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for care of preterm or LBW infants, we conducted a complementary research prioritisation exercise. A diverse, globally representative guideline development group (GDG) of experts - all authors of this paper along with WHO steering group for preterm-LBW guidelines - was assembled by the WHO to examine evidence and consider a variety of factors in intervention effectiveness and implementation, leading to 25 new recommendations and one good practice statement for care of preterm or LBW infants. The GDG generated research questions (RQs) based on contributions to improvements in care and outcomes of preterm or LBW infants, public health impacts, answerability, knowledge gaps, feasibility of implementation, and promotion of equity, and then ranked the RQs based on their likelihood to further change or influence the WHO guidelines for the care of preterm or LBW infants in the future. Thirty-six priority RQs were identified, 32 (89%) of which focused on aspects of intervention effectiveness, and the remaining four addressed implementation ("how") questions. Of the top 12 RQs, seven focused on further advancing new recommendations - such as family involvement and support in caring for preterm or LBW infants, emollient therapy, probiotics, immediate KMC for critically ill newborns, and home visits for post-discharge follow-up of preterm or LBW infants - and three RQs addressed issues of feeding (breastmilk promotion, milk banks, individualized feeding). RQs prioritised here will be critical for optimising the effectiveness and delivery of new WHO recommendations for care of preterm or LBW infants. The RQs encompass unanswered research priorities for preterm or LBW infants from prior prioritisation exercises which were conducted using Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology.

Funding

Nil.

Research priorities to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to the functioning of societies and their health systems. Prior to the pandemic, health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) were particularly stretched and vulnerable. The International Society of Global Health (ISoGH) sought to systematically identify priorities for health research that would have the potential to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs.

Methods

The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method was used to identify COVID-19-related research priorities. All ISoGH members were invited to participate. Seventy-nine experts in clinical, translational, and population research contributed 192 research questions for consideration. Fifty-two experts then scored those questions based on five pre-defined criteria that were selected for this exercise: 1) feasibility and answerability; 2) potential for burden reduction; 3) potential for a paradigm shift; 4) potential for translation and implementation; and 5) impact on equity.

Results

Among the top 10 research priorities, research questions related to vaccination were prominent: health care system access barriers to equitable uptake of COVID-19 vaccination (ranked 1st), determinants of vaccine hesitancy (4th), development and evaluation of effective interventions to decrease vaccine hesitancy (5th), and vaccination impacts on vulnerable population/s (6th). Health care delivery questions also ranked highly, including: effective strategies to manage COVID-19 globally and in LMICs (2nd) and integrating health care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs (3rd). Additionally, the assessment of COVID-19 patients’ needs in rural areas of LMICs was ranked 7th, and studying the leading socioeconomic determinants and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs using multi-faceted approaches was ranked 8th. The remaining questions in the top 10 were: clarifying paediatric case-fatality rates (CFR) in LMICs and identifying effective strategies for community engagement against COVID-19 in different LMIC contexts.

Interpretation

Health policy and systems research to inform COVID-19 vaccine uptake and equitable access to care are urgently needed, especially for rural, vulnerable, and/or marginalised populations. This research should occur in parallel with studies that will identify approaches to minimise vaccine hesitancy and effectively integrate care for COVID-19 with other essential health services in LMICs. ISoGH calls on the funders of health research in LMICs to consider the urgency and priority of this research during the COVID-19 pandemic and support studies that could make a positive difference for the populations of LMICs.

The Psychological Impact of COVID-19 among Women Accessing Family Care Centers during Pregnancy and the Postnatal Period in Italy

There has been concern about the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on women's mental health during the perinatal period. We conducted a cross-sectional web-based study aimed at evaluating the psychological impact (BSI-18) of the COVID-19 pandemic on this population and collecting information on the perinatal experiences (COPE-IS) during the second Italian wave. Overall, 1168 pregnant women, and 940 within the first six months after childbirth, were recruited in selected Italian Family Care Centers from October 2020 to May 2021. The prevalence of psychological distress symptoms during pregnancy was 12.1% and 9.3% in the postnatal group. Financial difficulties, a previous mood or anxiety disorder and lack of perceived social support and of support provided by health professionals were associated to psychological distress symptoms in both groups. A third of the women felt unsupported by their social network; 61.7% of the pregnant women experienced changes in antenatal care; 21.2% of those in the postnatal period gave birth alone; more than 80% of the participants identified access to medical and mental health care and self-help as important resources in the present context. Health services should assure enhanced support to the most vulnerable women who face the perinatal period during the pandemic.